Bonds vs. Pujols so far..

TheRoach

Pujols - .294 avg, 34 at bats, 10 hits, 3 2B's, 4 homers, 11 RBI's, and 7 BB's.

Bonds - .440 avg, 25 at bats, 11 hits, 4 2B's, 3 homers, 8 RBI's, and 9 BB's.


So far Bonds is the 2004 N.L MVP just like I said. Very early, but it's looking good so far!

God, this guy just gets better with age. I'll ask again - do steroids help you see the ball better?? That's what I thought!



TheRoach

carew4me

Until players are tested for all substances at regular, unannouced intervals I will assume ALL players are juiced.
(we know at least 10% are using)

Especially the ones who have ties DIRECTLY to BALCO, have no neck and an enlarged forehead.

Its not a matter of talent (Bonds is clearly talented), its a matter of cheating. Someone is cheating...who is it?

Samples from 2 years are there, why will the PU not allow these to be tested?

Come on guys...demand better than your getting.

Tell the game that your not the brain dead moron, willing to accept anything, that they think you are.

MrRookie

Butcher

You think steroids will make your forehead grow????? Very misinformed. How will testosterone make your skull grow larger? If that was the case, every male in existence would have a continually growing forehead.

Vincecarder

Steroids can change your body and your voice...Barry does sound kinda different...like someone is squeezing him somewhere where they shouldn't be.

Tabe

<< <i>You think steroids will make your forehead grow????? Very misinformed. How will testosterone make your skull grow larger? If that was the case, every male in existence would have a continually growing forehead. >>


True, steroids don't make your forehead grow, but HGH does. People use the word "steroids" as a catch-all phrase for "banned substance" in sports. It could mean HGH, THG, actual steroids, etc.

Tabe
www.tabe.nu

Butcher

Yes Tabe, HGH could and then along with IGF-1 you could get the massive gains but still his body doesn't really exhibit long term use of HGH. Long term use of HGH yields low body fat and Bonds looks somewhat "pudgy." If he is using HGH there is really no way prove it. You can test for HGH levels but it varies for every person and as you get older your HGH levels drop but some peoples don't drop has fast as others, so if he is using low levels of HGH(2-4iu's/day) it would be really hard to prove it.

joestalin

Its pretty sad when a 3rd year guy like Pujols is putting up the same stats as a HOF'er! If you
really must compare them why not compare 2001 Pujols to 1986 Bonds or 2003 Pujols to 1988
Bonds?

Well I know none of you will be running out to get those stats so let me provide them:

In 1986 Bonds had 72 runs 92 hits 16 homers 48 RBI's struck out 102 times and batted .223
In 2001 Pujols had 112 runs 194 hits 37 homers 130 RBI's struck out 93 times and batted .329

In 1987 Bonds had 99 runs 92 hits 25 homers 59 RBI's K'ed 88 times and batted .261
In 2002 Pujols had 118 runs 185 hits 34 homers 124 RBI's Ked 69 times and batted .314

In 1988 Bonds had 97 runs 152 hits 24 homers 58 RBI's K'ed 82 times and batted .238
In 2003 Pujols had 137 runs 212 hits 43 homers 124 RBI's Ked 65 times and batted .359

Sorry but Bonds doesn't even compare and still isn't even a lifetime 300 hitter!

Take the average of Bonds stats three years when he won the NL MVP (90,92,93)

114 runs 161 hits 37 homers 113 rbi's 77K's .316 average....Pujols blows thost stats away
his rookie season!!!

Sure Pujols might not play until he is 40 but if you must compare apples to apples, then Pujols is
CLEARLY superior to Bonds.

Class Dismissed.

JS

TheRoach

<< <i>Its pretty sad when a 3rd year guy like Pujols is putting up the same stats as a HOF'er! If you
really must compare them why not compare 2001 Pujols to 1986 Bonds or 2003 Pujols to 1988
Bonds?

Well I know none of you will be running out to get those stats so let me provide them:

In 1986 Bonds had 72 runs 92 hits 16 homers 48 RBI's struck out 102 times and batted .223
In 2001 Pujols had 112 runs 194 hits 37 homers 130 RBI's struck out 93 times and batted .329

In 1987 Bonds had 99 runs 92 hits 25 homers 59 RBI's K'ed 88 times and batted .261
In 2002 Pujols had 118 runs 185 hits 34 homers 124 RBI's Ked 69 times and batted .314

In 1988 Bonds had 97 runs 152 hits 24 homers 58 RBI's K'ed 82 times and batted .238
In 2003 Pujols had 137 runs 212 hits 43 homers 124 RBI's Ked 65 times and batted .359

Sorry but Bonds doesn't even compare and still isn't even a lifetime 300 hitter!

Take the average of Bonds stats three years when he won the NL MVP (90,92,93)

114 runs 161 hits 37 homers 113 rbi's 77K's .316 average....Pujols blows thost stats away
his rookie season!!!

Sure Pujols might not play until he is 40 but if you must compare apples to apples, then Pujols is
CLEARLY superior to Bonds.

Class Dismissed. >>




I will be here in about 16 years to start comparing what Pujols did from the time he was about 36 until 40 years old, to the same stats of Bonds at those ages. What a ridiculous comparison you made Joe.

The athletes and game has changed so much since 1986. A 40 home run season was spectacular back then. Now that is an average year! Balls have been juiced the past 10 years also. At least tighter wound. Did you know that you don't necessarily have to be big and buff to have taken steroids? Lots of athletes take them. Swimmers, runners, etc.. I think Pujols is on them. Give me one good reason why he couldn't be?

Class dismissed.



TheRoach

Stone193

<< <i>I will be here in about 16 years >>


Roach - that's a good point - a different time and these are different players - I see Kevin's posted statistics and it's plain that Pujols is stronger out of the gate - but many players have posted good numbers early on and didn't sustain them. Granted as Kevin stated, Barry is not a 300 life timer - but the impact of his stats - HR's, walks, gold gloves etc. belie the sub300 career average.
We're just going to have to come back in 10-15 years - boy will I be old!
Mike

Scumbi

This steroid thing should be fun. Piazza shows up 40 pounds lighter this year? Either that's AIDS or steroid withdrawal.

Also, has anyone had a good look at Sosa lately. He can't be killed by bullets. He's thicker than a redwood tree fed Miracle Gro everyday. If someone wanted to drive him like a car, they'd have to get a tank class license. Plus, the guy uses cork. Like the roids aren't enough. If he ever hit one of the screws with the wind blowing out at home, someone on the Diamondbacks might make the catch during a home game.

Bonds and Pujols are certainly suspect. However, look at Mickelson when he won on the tour as an amateur 12 or so years ago. He's tripled in size. He could genetically mate with a water buffalo. I expect to see him eating the grass at Augusta next year and mooing. However, he's not on roids. He's on butter.

It will be good when steroid abusers are banned. The game deserves better.

Just me weighing in,

Scumbi

joestalin

oh ok..I see, its ok to mention the juiced ball when talking about Pujols' gaudy numbers but when we
compare Bonds to Ruth or Williams suddenly we don't mention the small parks, juiced balls and juiced
players? Which is it? If you want to say that players playing in the 21st century are part of the juiced
ball era, then Bonds should have an * besides everything he has done. No one finds it odd that the
same time that guys start juicing is the same time that Bonds hits 73 and then breaks records? Was
Bonds even on the radar in 1999? Are we sitting here talking about this if he doesn't hit 73?

If Pujols is playing in the juiced ball era then Bonds is too, you can't forget that when it is convient. Is there
anyone here that doesn't think Pujols would put up Bonds type numbers if he played in 1986?

Whether it is Pujols v Bonds over 3 years, or Williams v Bonds over a lifetime, Barry loses both of those
comparisons.

JS

kuhlmann

""God, this guy just gets better with age. I'll ask again - do steroids help you see the ball better?? That's what I thought!""


Yes they can they make you run faster jump higher swim better box better fight better etc.. and yes they do make your hand eye coordination better. it is an overall powerful drug!! just instinct when on them makes everything else seem slower to yourself. read arnold's bio. he took enough to kill a man 10 times over.

kuhlmann

Think about this Bonds has only hit more than 50 hrs 1 time !! 1 time!! 1 time!!! and thats the year he hit 73!! thats the year he took the roids id bet! he probably got talked into it tried it and WOW! GOES TO SHOW YOU WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO THE BEST BASEBALL PLAYER IF HE TOOK ROIDS! SAME GOES FOR BIG MAC HITTING 70! Thats my story and im sticking to it!

TheRoach

<< <i>Think about this Bonds has only hit more than 50 hrs 1 time !! 1 time!! 1 time!!! and thats the year he hit 73!! thats the year he took the roids id bet! he probably got talked into it tried it and WOW! GOES TO SHOW YOU WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO THE BEST BASEBALL PLAYER IF HE TOOK ROIDS! SAME GOES FOR BIG MAC HITTING 70! Thats my story and im sticking to it! >>



Kuhlman - C'mon man. Hand/Eye coordination is one thing, but hitting a 90 MPH fastball is another.

How many times do I have to bring it up again, Bonds could easily hit 60 home runs a year if they did not walk him as much each of the following years. The only way you could say that he was on roids that year but not any other is if his current homers were dying a few feet from the wall. Have you seen his last 2 shots??? They were ridiculous! He could hit 75 home runs in any given season if the pitchers gave him strikes at least 2 at bats per game.

He gets garbage to hit and he still had 45 or so homers each year after the 73. It's not rocket science guys. How many pitchers do you think were willing to give Barry a good pitch during any game after he came off a 73 home run year. Nobody wanted to put the ball over the plate!! Most guys still don't want to!! I know I wouldn't!!

Not pitching to such a home run threat like Barry is the equivilant of double covering a great wide receiver in the NFL. If the guy is great, he deserves to be defended better, right? Pitchers are deathly scared of a 40 year old ball player. What does that tell you.

If you put the ball anywhere over the strike zone, 8/10 Barry will knock it out. No doubt.

I can't believe that some of you guys are being so ignorant to this guys accomplishments. He will go down as the best ever! I hate to say it Stalin, but I will guarantee you that he finishes his career as a .300 hitter or slightly better. He has had a bunch of great hitting seasons as of late. He'll break Aaron's record, have over 500 stolen bases, tons of gold gloves, a batting title ( or two ), the single season HR record, 6 ( or more ) MVP's, and you aren't satisfied because he may not hit .300 for his career??? Now that is just being absurd.

Statistically, and read that again, I said STATISTICALLY, he will compare and rank right up with the best who ever played this game!

You can take that to the bank. BTW, how many stolen bases did Ted Williams or Blob Ruth have? How about MVP awards? Oh, I see. LOL



TheRoach

Stone193

<< <i>Whether it is Pujols v Bonds over 3 years, or Williams v Bonds over a lifetime, Barry loses both of those >>


Kevin
Pujols v Bonds - you got it covered so far - I agree to a point. But lifetime William v Bonds - why Williams? Sure, he had a way better average - but the complete package - Williams was slow - doesn't Barry edge him out with respect to total stats and accomplishments. BTW, neither one of them were darlings of the media and fans.
Mike

joestalin

There are those who say that Bonds is the greatest home run hitter of all time...that is not true..yet

Then there are those who call him the greatest hitter of all time....in my opinion that is not true, if you
compare Bonds to Williams in like at bats, Williams was a much better hitter. Stolen bases have
nothing to do with either home run hitter or greatest hitter.

Ted Williams was the greatest hitter of all time, and if he played the number of games that Bonds
had he would have over 600 homer, maybe even 700. Are you going to trade Bonds speed and
stolen bases with a guy who hit .400 and hit for the triple crown????

LOL...Ill take the later, remember the last guy to hit .400? Last guy to win the triple crown? Sosa will
have 600 when he is done and others have a shot at it too...it doesn't mean that much today...Ill
be the first to admit 500/500 is very impressive, will probably not be done ever again, but Bonds
is not the greatest base runner ever, and not the greatest hitter of all time either.

I already showed what little his MVP's meant in comparison to Pujols, bringing up the gold gloves is
a joke, Bonds will never be considered a defensive player...how hard is it to win a gold glove
catching pop flies? We all know the guy has NO ARM..just ask Sid Bream...and where do you stick
the tape of him falling on his rear in game 6 of the World Series when the Giants were 6 outs
away from rings? MVP's are voted on, hitting for the triple crown and batting 400 are real
accomplinshiment..you are showing me accolades of Bonds that are voted on. Thats weak. Williams
in peace time, with a juiced ball, in small parks, on roids, would be many times more dangerous
than Bonds could ever of been!

JS

boston1918

First of all, to say someone is the greatest home run hitter of all time has to do with a lot more than just total home run numbers. With the numbers being put up today theres going to be guys going over 600 HR's all the time. I think the only fair way to do it is compare to at bats. It's pretty obvious if a guy has thousands of more at bats than another player that he'll in turn have more home runs, assuming he has the talent in the first place. Nothing against hank Aaron, but he had 4000 more at bats than Ruth. Bonds already has more and will be somewhere around 1500 more at bats to pass Ruth. How does this make him better? Not to mention that Ruth had a WAY better average, almost 50 points, better on base percentage, better sluggin percentage, and slightly less strikeouts. You want to cry about him being walked all the time and not getting a change, Ruth had more walks also, it took Bonds 500 more at bats to catch Ruth in walks. Not to mention Ted Williams who has same amount of walks with ONE THOUSAND less at bats and way better average. Ruth also lost 5 years while he was pitching. Imagine Ruth getting those 5 years back? He'd be nearing 1000 HR's. That's not even counting the fact that the ball was way less live back then. And to the guy who said the pitching was weak back then(might have been another thread related to Bonds), that's about as untrue as it gets. You don't think the over expansion and weak teams have anything to do with Bonds numbers? To say Bonds is a better hitter than Ruth or Williams is just stupid. The only thing Bonds wins at hitting wise is strike outs. Every other category he loses at. How does that make him a better hitter? Williams only struck out 709 times lifetime. Williams walked more, hit home runs more often, hit 50 points better than Bonds average, got on base more, and struck out half as often. How the hell does that makes Bonds better? If you want to change it to all around overall best player, you have Ruth who was a better hitter, AND would have been a hall of fame pitcher. That blows Bonds away. Stolen bases and MVP awards doesn't make you the best player ever. And Bonds is so juiced up he can't even steal bases anymore. All those guys saying look how good he's doing this year with no juice. First of all, who says he's off it? Second of all, even if he is, it doesn't just dissapear from your system right away. Thirdly, if they actually catch him, does anyone actually think MLB will let this get out? I think worst you'll see is a quiet FORCED retirement. Baseball's image is way too bad right now to even think of letting it get out if they prove Bonds is on roids'. For raw home run hitter Bonds doesn't even compare to McGwire. The guy who said Mac was lucky hitting 70? He also hit 65 the next year, and was averaging 40 HR"s a year when he was way smaller and just breaking into the league. Him hitting 49 first year, and averaging 40, up to 52 HR's and jumping to 70 isn't even close Bonds hitting 73 and next closest was 49. If McGwire would have stayed healthy the years he played and reached Bonds number of at bats, he would have been close to 800 HR's, not even counting if he could have played a few more years and wasn't injured. There's something to say for longevity and staying healthy, but it sure doesn't make you the best player ever, otherwise Ripken would be.

And as far as commenting on the stupidity of saying Bonds is the 2004 MVP I won't even go there 10 games into the year.

NO doubt Bonds is a great player but he'd be lucky to break top 3 hitters, if not top 5. Overall player I don't even think he's top 3. How do you compare todays players to guys who played 100 years ago when 50 HR"s was triple the WHOLE leagues total? The only case you can even begin to make that might be valid is best player from this era. Evem then I think there are probably a couple better hitters, maybe not overall, but that's in opinion.

I think know we can actually say case closed, class dismissed.

Butcher

Steroids are NOT going to help hand/eye coordination! In fact, some steroids actually make your vision worse. Things that do help concentration which could translate to better hand/eye coordination are drugs like caffeine and especially the ADD prescribed drugs like Aderol(sp?). Are we going to ban these also? What about pain killers? These drugs mask pain that allow current athletes to play when players from the early 20th century couldn't! Oh wait, COCAINE was legal back then and I'm sure most of the athletes used it also since it was the main ingredient in "fix it all" medications back then. Maybe every ball player prior to the 1920's should have an * also???

CADILLACN97

why should there be an * anyway? steriods were legal in MLB up until 2002. so whether it was morally right or not is one thing, but they were not banned until 2 years ago. is it because bonds hasn't admitted taking juice? if he did would people's outlook change? i doubt it. from what i hear mcgwire wasn't a darling either, it wasn't until him and sosa had the home run chase that he 'looked' like he cared. he ADMITTED to taking the supplement andro, but nobody wants to put an * there.

take away bonds 73 home run season. brady anderson, shawn green, and luis gonzalez have all had equal or more home runs in one season. are/were they juicing? and except for that 73 home run season, he just just an average home run hitter. there are 10+ players every season that hit 40 or more homers.

palmeiro's a juicer too, but nobody has a problem with him?

TheRoach

<< <i>Steroids are NOT going to help hand/eye coordination! In fact, some steroids actually make your vision worse. Things that do help concentration which could translate to better hand/eye coordination are drugs like caffeine and especially the ADD prescribed drugs like Aderol(sp?). Are we going to ban these also? What about pain killers? These drugs mask pain that allow current athletes to play when players from the early 20th century couldn't! Oh wait, COCAINE was legal back then and I'm sure most of the athletes used it also since it was the main ingredient in "fix it all" medications back then. Maybe every ball player prior to the 1920's should have an * also??? >>



Well said Butcher. I am on your side.

Just curious - were you a hippy back in the day, or are you in the medical field. You have a very good knowledge of these drugs. )



TheRoach

DaBigHurt

Nice to see Joestalin go back to his message board trolling ways.

OH NOS BARRY DOESN"T HAVE A .300 LIFETIME AVERAGE!!!1111

ALFONSO SORIANO IS BETTERZ THAN BONDS!!

joestalin

welp, I think this thread is done...sorry but bonds loses. Thanks to all who participated.

JS

DaBigHurt

How's your boy Soriano doing by the way?

Oh not so good? You lose again. Thx drive thru~

carew4me

Nice to see Joestalin go back to his message board trolling ways.

Yeah right. And your only contribution to this thread is to stalk JS.

But he's trolling?

Your a hypocrit who seems to be battling disturbing feelings for one of our fellow board members.

Have you consider becoming a Catholic priest?

DaBigHurt

<< <i>Yeah right. And your only contribution to this thread is to stalk JS.

But he's trolling?

Your a hypocrit who seems to be battling disturbing feelings for one of our fellow board members.

Have you consider becoming a Catholic priest? >>



Glad to see that you agree with me on Joe.

Also nice to see that a year later, you've been able to get along with your life and not obsess over our little tiff.

Or not???

Have you considered seeking professional help for your 'disturbing feelings' over a fellow board member?

Tabe

<< <i>why should there be an * anyway? steriods were legal in MLB up until 2002. >>


But they were illegal, as in against the law well before that. Since when do the sports leagues have to ban stuff that's already illegal? "This just in, MLB has passed a rule against murdering the 1st baseman in order to beat out a bunt".

Tabe
www.tabe.nu

Tabe

<< <i>LOL...Ill take the later, remember the last guy to hit .400? Last guy to win the triple crown? >>


Last guy to win the Triple Crown was Carl Yastremski. Last guy before that was Frank Robinson. THEN came Ted Williams.

Tabe
www.tabe.nu

Skinpinch

Some clairty on this issue. There really isn't any argument to put Bonds as a better hitter or all around player than Ruth, whether you are going by raw stats, or relative stats(compared to the league), Ruth is superior. So those arguments should cease. There really isn't a case comparing Bonds to Williams as a hitter(if taking into account William's years missed due to service), in both raw numbers, and relative numbers, Williams is better, so those arguments should cease. In the case of Williams vs. Bonds, adding in baserunning and fielding make it closer, you may debate on that if you wish.

In the case of somebody saying that Bonds may be the third or fourth best hitter of his era, that statement should be thrown out the window, along with the person who said it, for that is ridiculous. Just as Ruth beats Bonds in both raw stats and relative stats, Bonds blows everyone of his contemporaries in both raw and relative stats. Bond is clearly the best player of his era, and there really is no case against it. Arguments against that have no ground to stand on.

In the case of Bonds being purely a product of enhancment drugs, that is not accurate. Bonds has had the rare experience of playing in the transistion of one era to another. Bonds played in a 'normal' era up until about 1992. The live ball era started in about 1994. Bonds was a skinny bad attitude kid in the normal era and he did quite well at dominating his league during that time without any enhancements. From 1990-1992 he led the league in OPS all three years!! He won two MVP's in that span, and should have filed a police report for Pendleton stealing his third. Joe, even those awards are voted on, in those cases, BONDS WAS CLEARLY the best player in the league. Sure his raw numbers from those years look much lower than his raw numbers from his later years, but that is because it happened before the live ball era. He was still clearly the best player pre drug enhancement years

However, Bonds does see a spike in his relative stats later in his years, and enhancements can very possibly be the main reason why. Even in relative terms, bonds clearly had his best years in these last few years(very rare for any player to have his best years at his age), so It is almost a certainty, looking at the objective stats, that Bonds numbers do look fishy. However again, his contemporaries are also doing the same stuff he is, and Bonds is vastly superior to any of them still!! So there is no argument whatsoever against Bonds being the best of his time. Joe, using batting average as your barometer is an awful statistical analytical mistake, but you are correct in the Ruth and Williams arguments.

As in the case of Pujols, I will predict that this is the best he will get, and yet Bonds is still superior. Taking the first three years of Bonds' career vs. Pujols is a meaningless study for a few reasons(which I don't want to get into right here). Pujols is also a very big man who could easily be doing the same junk bonds has. It is also EXTREMELY possibly that Pujols is about three years older than his listed age, and that will have a big impact on future accomplishments.

Looking at it objectively one can only come to three conclusions....Ruth is clearly better in any way than Bonds, Williams is a better hitter than Bonds, and Bonds is the best player of his era. There really isn't an objective case to say otherwise. All other hateful stuff, or picking out one or two plays to prove a point, or picking out a batting average from the first three years, doesn't do anything to change any objective analysis that can be done. Once can argue till your blue in the face on what Pujols or any other player MIGHT do 15 years down the road, but only time will tell on that.